تحلیل تحوّلات اندیشة «کیفیت زندگی» در معماری و شهرسازی
محورهای موضوعی : معماری
رضا سامه
1
(دترای معماری، عضو هیأتعلمی دانشکدۀ معماری و شهرسازی دانشگاه بینالمللی امامخمینی)ره(، قزوین.)
غلامرضا اکرمی
2
(دترای معماری، عضو هیأتعلمی دانشکدۀ معماری پردس هنرهای زبا، دانشگاه تهران.)
کلید واژه: کیفیت, کیفیت زندگی, استاندارد زندگی, معماری, شهرسازی,
چکیده مقاله :
کیفیت زندگی مفهوم مهمی است که میتوان آن را در قالب یک اندیشه به عنوان یکی از موضوعات علمی نزد پژوهشگران حوز معماری و شهرسازی از ده 1960 مشاهده کرد. این اندیشه در پی انتقادات به جریانات قرن بیستم مطرح و تا قرن اخیر ةة ادامه داشته که در هر دوره ماهیتی خاص پیدا کرده است. هدف مقاله شناخت رویکردهای مختلف به این اندیشه در هر دور ة زمانی، بررسی تکوین و درک جایگاه آن در دور معاصر است. بدینمنظور مقاله چهار بخش اصلی را شامل میشود: بخش اول ة به معرفی اندیش کیفیت زندگی و سیر مفهومی آن اختصاص دارد. در بخش دوم عوامل مؤثر بر پیدایش آن در معماری و ة شهرسازی و نیز نتایج آن مورد بررسی قرار خواهد گرفت. بخش سوم شاهد سیر تحوّل این اندیشه در دور معاصر خواهیم بود ةو در پایان در یک جمعبندی به وضعیت این اندیشه در قرن حاضر و جهتگیریهای آتی پرداخته خواهد شد.
«Quality of life« is an important concept and most thinkers in the past have been considered it. Although somephilosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Descartes, Habermas, Rawls and others have talked about thequality of human life, but this concept as a matter of scientific research can be found only in social, economic,health and psychological studies since 1930s and in architecture and urban studies since 1960s.The «Quality of life« approach arose in the wake of criticism of the early twentieth century events and continued untilthe recent century, with a specific nature in each period. The main origins of them are appearance of «Standard ofLiving« term; change the «Standard« to «Quality« and the «Quality of Life Movement«. These phrases exemplifycontinued attempts to represent human reality and welfare in objective terms and to rationalize collective decisionmaking; but the passage from one to the other shows a shift in public discourse from individual life to communityand even to global subjects.In fact, this shift from standard to quality denotes a widening of our perspective on human being and life, a moreholistic and comprehensive approach to architecture and urban planning. So the phrase «Quality of Life« givesvoice to our concern with the nonmaterial dimension of wellbeing, beyond the basic needs of the individual.The purpose of this article is to understand the different approaches of this concept in any time and paying attentionto the evolution of that in the contemporary era to solve the problems ahead efficiently. Also, it determines thedimensions and the nature of the takes to be undertaken.This article explores what the evolution of Quality of Life approach tells us about architecture and urbanism andabout built environment in general since 1930s. Therefore, the strategy in this article is the study of history,issues and factors affecting the appearance of «Quality of Life« approach and explanation its evolution in thecontemporary architecture and urbanism. Also the method is explaining past events, analyze, and explore therelationship between them to recognize the nature of this approach.To this end, the paper contains four main parts: The first part is an introduction of the «quality of life« concept andits development process. The second part, as a literature review, is devoted for viewing the architectural and urbanquality of life factors in the appearance of this thought. The third part will discuss the evolution of «Quality of Life«concept in the modern period and in the fourth part as a result we will face with the status of this approach at theend of this century and the further developments.Regarding the evolution of the «quality of life« thought in the second half of the last century until now, the future of thisapproach in architecture and urbanism can be pursued in the globalization studies. With more surveys in this field, thisidea can be seen in the environmental different aspects and can be applied in the implementation of this idea.... Keywords: Quality, Quality of Life, Standard of Living, Architecture, Urbanism
1. اسکات، جیمز سی. (1388). مدرنیسم نخبه‌گرای اقتدارطلب در کمپل، اسکات؛ و فاینشتاین،سوزان. (گردآورندگان). نظریه‌های برنامه‌ریزی. (عارف اقوامی‌مقدم، مترجم). تهران: آذرخش. (نشر اثر اصلی 2011).
2. بحرینی، سیدحسین. (1385). تجدّد، فراتجدّد و پس از آن در شهرسازی. تهران: دانشگاه تهران.
3. بیورگارد، رابرت ای. (1388). میان مدرنیته و پسامدرنیته: وضعیت مبهم برنامه‌ریزی در ایالات متحده آمریکا در کمپل، اسکات؛ و فاینشتاین،سوزان. (گردآورندگان). نظریه‌های برنامه‌ریزی. (عارف اقوامی‌مقدم، مترجم). تهران: آذرخش. (نشر اثر اصلی 2011).
4. خستو، مریم؛ و سعیدی‌رضوانی، نوید. (1389). عوامل مؤثر بر سرزندگی فضاهای شهری. هویت شهر، 4(6)، 63-74.
5. شوای، فرانسواز. (1384). شهرسازی: تخیّلات و واقعیات. (سیدمحسن حبیبی، مترجم). تهران: دانشگاه تهران. (نشر اثر اصلی 1979)
6. غفاری، غلامرضا؛ و امیدی، رضا. (1388). کیفیت‌زندگی: شاخص توسعه اجتماعی. تهران: شیرازه.
7. فکوهی، ناصر. (1383). انسان‌شناسی شهری. تهران: نشر نی.
8. فیشلر، رافائل. (1381). برنامه‌ریزی برای بهبود وضعیت زندگی: از استاندارد زندگی تا کیفیت زندگی. (محمد تقی‌زاده مطلق، مترجم). جستارهای شهرسازی، 1(1)، 17-26.
9. کاپلستون، فردریک‌چارلز. (1388). تاریخ فلسفه: یونان و روم. (سیدجلال‌‌الدّین مجتبوى، مترجم). تهران: علمی و فرهنگی. (نشر اثر اصلی 1985).
10. کلوسترمن، ریچارد ایی. (1388). له و علیه برنامه‌ریزی در کمپل، اسکات؛ و فاینشتاین،سوزان. (گردآورندگان). نظریه‌های برنامه‌ریزی. (عارف اقوامی‌مقدم، مترجم). تهران: آذرخش. (نشر اثر اصلی 2011)
11. مختاری، مرضیه؛ و نظری، جواد. (1389). جامعه‌شناسی کیفیت‌زندگی. تهران: جامعه‌شناسان.
12. معینی، مهدیه؛ و اسلامی، سیدغلامرضا. (1391). رویکردی تحلیلی به کیفیت محیط مسکونی معاصر. هویت شهر، 6(10)، 47-58.
13. مهدیزاده، جواد. (1385). برنامه‌ریزی راهبردی توسعه شهری. تهران: معاونت شهرسازی و معماری وزارت مسکن و شهرسازی.
13. Baumol, W. J., & Oates, W. E. (1969). Economics, Environmental Policy and the quality of life. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
14. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E. & Roders, W. L. (1976). The Quality of American Life: Perceptions, Evaluations and Satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
15. Cummins R. A. (1999). A Psychometric Evaluation of the Comprehensive Quality of Life Scale. In Lim L. Y., Yuen B. & Low C. (Eds.). Urban quality of life: Critical issues and options. Singapore: School of Building & Real Estate, National University of Singapore.
16. Devine, E. T. (1917). The Normal life. New York: Douglas C. McMurtrie.
17. Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1997). Measuring quality of life: Economic, social, and subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research, 40, 189-216.
18. Dissart, J., & Deller, S. (2000). Quality of Life in the Planning Literature. Journal of Planning Literature. 15(1),135-161.
19. Diwan, R. (2000). Relational wealth and the quality of life. Journal of Socio-Economics, 29(4), 305-340.
20. Donovan N., & Halpern, D. (2002). Life Satisfaction: The State of Knowledge and Implications for Government. London: Cabinet Office, Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit.
21. Erdogan, N., Akyol, A., Ataman, B., & Dokmeci, V. (2007). Comparison of Urban Housing Satisfaction in Modern and Traditional Neighborhoods in Edirne, Turkey. Social Indicators Research, (81), 48- 127.
22. Evcil, T., Nilay, A., & Atalik, G. (2001). Possibilies and Limitations for The Measurement of Quality of Life in Urban Areas, Social Indicators Research. 53, 163–187.
23. Fischler, R. (2000). Planning for Social Betterment: From Standard of Living to Quality of life. In Robert Freestone (Ed.), Urban Planning in Changing World. (PP. 139-157). London: E and F Spon.
24. Garcia Mira, R. (2005). Housing, Space and Quality of Life. UK. Surrey: Ashgate.
25. Giannias, D. A. (1996). Quality of life in SouthernOntario. Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 19(2), 213-223.
26. Habermas, J. (1971). Science and Technology as Ideology: toward a rational society Boston. Boston: Beacon Press.
27. Hankiss, E. (1981). Cross-Cultural Quality of Life Research: An Outline for Conceptual Framework. In Quality of Life: Problems of Assessment and Measurement. (PP. 9-48). Paris: UNESCO.
28. Howe, J., McMahin, E. T., & Probst, L. (1997). Balancing Nature and Commerce in Gateway Communities. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
29. Jackson, T. (2002).Quality of Life, Economic Growth and Sustainability. In T. Fitzpatrick & M. Cahill (Ed.), Environment and Welfare: Towards a Green Social Policy. (PP. 97-116). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
30. Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death & life of Great American Cities. NewYork: Vintage Books.
31. Jeffres, L. W., Bracken, C. C., Jian, G., & Casey, M. F. (2009). The Impact of Third Places on Community Quality of Life. Applied Research in Quality of Life. 4(4), 333-345.
32. Kamp, I. V., Leidelmeijer, K., Marsman, G., & Hollandaer, A. D. (2003). Urban Environmental Quality and Human Well-being Towards a Conceptual Framework and Demarcation of Concepts; A Literature Study. Landscape and Urban Planning. (65), 5-18.
33. Kellet, P., & Tipple, Graham (2004). Exploring Space: Researching the Use of Domestic Space for Income Generation in Developing Countries. In Vestbro, D. U., Hürol, Y., & Wilkinson, N. (Ed.), Methodologies in Housing Research, Gateshead, Tyne and Wear: The Urban International Press.
34. Kline, E. (2001). Indicators for Sustainable Development in Urban Areas. In Devuyst, Dimitri. How Green is the City?. USA: Columbia.
35. Lane, R. (2006). Architectural Practice of Sustainability: A Question of Worldview. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of California. Berkeley.
36. Le Corbusier, C. (1959). Towards a NewArchitecture. NewYork: Dover Publications.
37. Lippmann, W. (1935). The New Imperative. New York: Macmillan.
38. Lloyd, K., & Auld, C. (2003). Leisure, Public Space and Quality of Life in the Urban Environment. Urban Policy and Research, 21(4), 339-356.
39. Lotfi, S., & Koohsari, M. J. (2009). Analyzing Accessibility Dimension of Urban Quality of Life: Where Urban Designers Face Duality between Subjective and Objective Reading of Place. Social Indicators Research, 94(3), 417-435.
40. Mallmann, C. A. (1975). Quality of Life and Alternatives for Development. Argentina: Bariloche Foundation.
41. Marans, R. W. (2004). Modelling Residential Quality Using Subjective and Objective Measures. In D. U. Vestbro, Y. Hürol, & Popov (Ed.), Methodologies in Housing Research. Gateshead, Tyne and Wear: The Urban International Press.
42. Marans, R. W., & Couper, M. (2000). Measuring the Quality of Community Life: A Program for Longitudinal and Comparative International Research. In Quality of Life in Cities. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Quality of Life in Cities. , March 2000. (PP. 386-400). Singapore.
43. Massam, B. H. (2002). Quality of Life: Public Planning and Private Living. Progress in Planning, 58, 141-227.
44. McCrea, R., Shyy, T. & Stimson, R. (2006). What is the Strength of the Link Between Objective and Subjective Indicators of Urban Quality of Life?. Applied Research in Quality of Life. 1(1), 79-96.
45. Myers, D. (1988). Building Knowledge about Quality of Life for Urban Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 54, 347-358.
46. Ng, S.H., Kam, P.K., & Pong, R.W.M. (2005). People Living in Ageing Buildings: Their Quality of Life and Sense of Belonging. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 347-360.
47. Pigou, A. C. (1914). Some Aspects of the Housing Problem. UK: Manchester University Press.
48. Richards, R., O’leary, B., & Mutsunziwa, K. (2007).Measuring Quality of Life in Informal Settlements inSouth Africa. Social Indicators Research. 81(2), 375-388.
49. Rowntree, B. S. (1914). Housing Reform in Great Britain. In Imperial Health. Proceedings of the Imperial Health Conference, May 18th to 21st. (PP. 89-99). London: Victoria League.
50. Schuessler, K. F., & Fisher, G. A. (1985). Quality of Life Research and Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology. 11, 129-149.
51. Senlier, N., & Yildiz, R. (2009). A Perception Survey for the Evaluation of Urban Quality of Life in Kocaeli and a Comparison of the Life Satisfaction with the European Cities. Social Indicators Research, 94(2), 213-226.
52. Sirgy, M. J., & Cornwell, T. (2002). How Neighborhood Features Affect Quality of Life. Social Indicators Research, 59, 79-114.
53. Stover, M. E., & Leven, C. L. (1992). Methodological Issues in the Determination of theQuality of Life in Urban Areas. Urban Studies, 29(5), 737–754.
54. Szalai, A., & Andrews, F. M. (1980). The Quality of Life: Comparative Studies. Sage Studies in International Sociology, 20, 235-247.
55. Testa, M., & Simonson, D. C. (1996). Assesment of Quality-of-Life Outcome. The New England Journal of Medicine, 334(13), 835–840.
56. Turgut, H., & Kellet, P. (2001). Cultural and Spatial Diversity in the Urban Environment. Istanbul: YEM Yayin.
57. Ulengin, B., Ulengin, F., & Guvenc, U. (2001). A multidimensional Approach to Urban Quality of Life. European Journal of Operational Research. 130(2), 361-374.
58. Wish, N. B. (1986). Are We Measuring the Quality of Life?. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 45(1), 93-99.
59. Yuan, L. L., Yuen, B., & Low, C. (1999). Quality of Life in Cities: Definition, Approaches and Research. In Lan Yuan Lim, Belinda K. P. Yuen, Christine Low (Ed.) Urban Quality of Life: Critical Issues and Options. (PP. 1-12). Singapore: Singapore University Press.
60. Yuen, B. (2004). Safety and Dwelling in Singapore, Cities, 21(10), 19-28.
61. Yushitaka, I. (2007). Leisure and Quality of Life in an International and Multicultural Context: What Are Major Pathways Linking Leisure to Quality of Life?. Social Indicators Research. 82(2), 233-264.
62. Zebardast, E. (2009). The Housing Domain of Quality of Life and Life Satisfaction in the Spontaneous Settlements on the Tehran Metropolitan Fringe, Social Indicators Research. 90, 307–324.
63. Ziauddin, S. (1993). Do Not Adjust Your Mind: Post-Modernism, Reality and the Other. Journal of Future, 25(8), 877-893.
_||_